C II 04MPIT

ED 030 586 SP .002 628 .

By-Young, Dorothy A.; Young, David B.The Effectiveness of Individually Prescribed Micro-Teaching Training Modules on an Internt Subsequent

Classroom Performance.Pub Date Feb 69Note-23p.. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los

Angeles, California, Fetru"ry 1969EDRS Price MF -$025 FIC -$125Descriptors -*Microteaching, Student Teachers; leacher Behavior, *Teaching Skills

The effectiveness of individually prescribed microteaching training modules in the

acquisition of selected teaching behaviors is ,being studied in two different contexts-during the preinternship year in the Master of Arts in Teaching Program, JohnsHopkins University, and during student teaching in *Teacher Education Centers,University of Maryland. It is hypothesized that the experimental (microteaching)

groups (1) will acquire a significantly greater number of selected, specific teachingbehaviors, (2) will have a significantly higher indirect-direct ratio, (3) will acquire agreater number of alternative teaching patterns, .and (4) will make a significantlygreater number of "emitted" responses. The final report will coMpare seven teaching

performances of five trainee groups. preliminary findings have been analyzed for onecomparison between 10-minute, video taped samples of teaching peelormance (1) ofthe control group (22 randomly selected interns who had one summer of studentteaching but no microteaching before their internship). during the eighth and 12th

weeks of their internship and (2) of a microteaching group (1)0 interns who had one

semester of course study and microteaching before internship), on a final

microteaChing lesson prior to internship. Three different instruments were used forcoding and scoring data before t test analysis. Findings support hypotheses 1 and 3.

(JS)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW CR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT LiFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIVIDUALLY PRESCRIBED MICRO-TEACHING

TRAINING MODULES ON AN INTERN'S SUBSEQUENT CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE

Dorothy A. Young

Department of EducationThe Johns Hopkins University

David B. Young

College of EducationUniversity of Maryland

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, February 5 - 8, 1969

Los Angeles, California

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIVIDUALLY PRESCRIBED MICRO-TEACHING

MAINING MODULES ON AN INTERN'S SUBSEQUENT CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE

Dorothy A. YoungThe Johns Hopkins University

David B. Young

University of Maryland

The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of

individually prescribed micro-teaching training modules in the acquisition

of selected teaching behaviors prior to classroom teaching experience and

subsequent implementation of these behaviors In classroom teaching. This

is a preliminary report of the study to be completed In-the Fall semester

of 1969.

Rationqle

Prior to the development of micro-teaching, ,specificteaehing

behaviors (skills) were primarily "caught" rather than taught es the

teacher was immersed in full classroom teaching. The novice teacher out

of frustration often resorted to imitating and adopting a supervising

teacher's "style" of teaching without regard for his own individuality or

the teaching-learning situation.

The micro teaching concept as developed at Stanford University

(Bush and Allen, 1963) consisted of a predetermined sequence of micro-

teaching sessions for the acquisition of selected teaching skills. In this

way, the novice teacher acquired a set of specific teaching behaviors and

began developing a "style" of his awn. Stanford studies indicate that

performance in micro-teaching situations predicts subsequent etassroom

performance at a significant level (p -* .001 chi square predictive,

relotionship), Predictions are rede on art eight item TOR "global" rating

instiument of teaching performance (Allen and Fortune, 1964). Fortune et. al.

(1961) repart significant gains (p < .00 on selected teaching skills over

the six week course of the cltnic.

Novice teachers display considerable variability in their repertory

of teaehing behaviors on an initial diagnostic performance. For example, wheh

requested to teach a lesson representative of their teaching ability, one

perscn may lecture; another may conduct a question.andaanswer session based

on recall. Still otherswill use different skills. Some will incorporate

several skills into theit teaching. Let it suffice to say that teacher

candidates do not possess like repertories of teaeler behavior. We must also

state the obvious--all teacher candidates do not acquire teaching skills at

the same rate.

The novice teacher's induction inte the teaching profession is often

accompanied by considerable trauma, discouragement, and failure. This is

due la large measure to the sudden immersion into the complexities of teaching

a sophisticated concept to thirty or more pupils, each manifesting different

psychological, cultural, and sociological orientations. The way the novice

teacher has been inducted Into teaching would be a:lalogous to training airline

pilots if they took up a full load of passengers the first day after pilot

school.

Micro-teaching, simulation, focused observation, etc. can provide

graduated experiences for a teacher trainee. Hollever, these experiences are

often common for all trainees without first assesseng each person's teaching

ability or repertory of teaching skills.

If teachers are to compete with mnchines thny need to perform in

ways a machine can not. A machine can not discriminate between one individual

and another unless a specific button is pushed which would yield a previously

progreemed response. The classroem teacher must be equipped to initiate as

well as to respond in any situation confronting him. He must be flexiblet

He must be able to make professiaal decisions based on a thorough analysis

of "personalogical" factors of !loth pupils and himself, the content,

conditions of learning, etc., ateiving at strategies which are designed

to meet each learning objective.

However thorough the analySis may b2 and complete and flexible the

strategies, if the teacher can not exoeute these alternative strategies in

the classroom he has been viduce0 to a machine. If one follows this line of

reasoning, teacher educators are obligated to provide teachers the

opportunity to acquire as uil a repertoire of alternative teaching behaviors

as posaible. Although this study is concerned only with the acquisition and

practice of specific teaching behaviors in a censtrtcted teaching-learning

situation, the entire s?ectrum of teacher educatien activities should be on

an individually diagnoeed and prescribed basis wherever feasible.

Description of the Stub:

The effectiveess of individually peescribed micro-teaching training

modules is being stiedied in two different centexts: during the pre.internship

year tn the Master of Arts In Teaching Pint-elm, The Johns Hopkins University

and during student teaching in Teacher Education Centers, University of

Mary and.

Pre.internshia . Johns Hopkins University . The experimental group is

comprised of 40 interns who are in their acedemic year or semester preceding

the internship. One group oC 30 inte.ns in this academic year (1968.69) are

involved in coerse work and micro-teachine prior to their semester (Fall, 1969)

of internship the followiee academic year. The other group of 10 interns

have (me semester (Fall, 1968) of coerse study and micro-teaching followed

by a semester (Spring, 1969) internshke. The present study is limited to the

4

one.semester micro.teaching 3roup. Ttca final report will include both

groups.

The control group consists of 22 randomly selected interns who begva

their classroom internship duriag the Pali semester, 1968. The control

group did not have micro-teachin3 before orduring their internship. Tit.:.y

participated in an obseriation-teticher aidepstudent teaching experierx..!

during the summer, 1968.

The present reporT; consists of a comparison of ten-minute, video.,taped

samples of teaching perf,3rmance of the control group between the eighth and

twelfth weeks of their Lltorn3hip and the oRe.semester nlicr.J.teaching group

on a final micro-teachin3 lef.sca three weeks prior to beinning their classo

room internship.

The final report will conslGt of a comparison of the followilig teaching

performances:

1. A control group sample betwten the eighth and twelfth week

of the internship (included in present study).

2. A control group sample during the final three weeks of the

internship.

3. The one-semester and academic year micro-teaching group's

first diagnostic performance and final micro-teaching lesson.

4. The one-semester micro-teaching group's internship performonce

during the first three weeks of internship and during the

final three weeks of internshicL

5. The academic year micro-teaching group's internship performance

during the first three w2eks and during the last three weeks

of the internship.

tnterns in the experimental group prepare and teach a five-minute

diagnostic lesson to a group of four pupils. This performance is coded

5

using a modified versim of Hough'f; Observation System for classroou

analysiG (Amidon and lieegh, 1968) nd Dimensions of Teacher Behaviol

(ifniversLy of Marylanl, 1969) and Performance Criteria for Micro-Tdaching

(Young and liceng, 1969). These game instruments are used for subsequent

diagnosis end analysis and will be referred to collectively as the

instruments.

Based on the foregoing analysis and inventory, a series of micro.,

teaching training modules are prescrIbed for the acquisition and practice

of selected teacher behaviors. These modules are not dictated to te

intern but are-mutually determined during the playback and conferenee of

the diagnostic:and each subsequent conference during the series. With the

exception of the one-szmaster group, the interns teach a 'alid-yeatiagnostic

lesson which is analyzed and another series of modules are prescribA.,

The micro-teaching sessions are held in private and public sOlools in

Baltimore City and Coulty. Students are obtained from study halls, released

time activities ana in some cases, classes. Each time an intern tasches, it

is to a different zroue of pupils.

Inica.taclaqaachins.Ininine Modules . The research on micro .

teaching indicates tha; a variety of formats has been effective in lodifying

a teacher's behavior (Allen et. al, 1967; Orme, 1966; Young, 1968, 1969;

Fortune et. al., 1967). There is some evidence that different teaching

behaviors can be more effectively taught in one format than another but the

results are far from conclusive. The development of the following modules

and conference strategies is based upon the above studies and the e,:perience

of the authors.

1. Basic module - This consists of a teacher teaching a 5.10

minute lesson to 4 pupils. The performance is video taim:d

6

and played back immediately. During the ensuing conferene ?

and video.tape playback, the supervisor focuses on one s7.1ezific

teaching behavior providin6 discrimination training and

reinforcemant. The teacher reteaches the same lesscn agalA to

a different group of pupils attempting to use alternative

components of the same dimension of teaching behavior.

Following the reteach, a confirmation conference Ls held.

2. Extended Basic Mbdcile . This format is tha same as above b/t

the teacher ray reteech two or three times if he has not

reached criteria for that specific behavior.

30 kusialtatata . Within a two hour period of time, a tea:her

may combine modules 1 and 2 above and concentrate on two or

more specific teaching behaviors working from one basic le;son

which is repentedly taught to different students.

4. Alternative c9nference Str.a.egies - In addition to the supar.

visor providing discrimination training and reinforcement on

the teacher's own performance between teaching sessions, a

variety of modelling protocols are also used. Three basic

kinds of models are used: video tape, audio tapes, and wri%ten.

The models are a constructed teaching-learning situation la a

micro-teaching format. The model presents a specific teaching

behavior which is exaggerated, and competing and distracting

stimuli (behEviors other than the one desired) are limited

The video-tape models are viewed by the teacher with the super-

visor or alone. Tn the latter case, the model is self-

instructional. The viewer is focused on the specific teaching

7

behavior by means of an auditory and/or vistial prompt. For a review of the

research and detailed description of modelling, see Young, 1969.

Pre-MicroeTeachine Seminars . 'instructional sessions are held prior

to some micro-teaching sessions. During these sessions, the criteria for

a specific teaching behavior are developed, and models may be shown. These

seminars are normally condocted when e specific teaching behavior willt be

the focus for all interns during the next micro-teaching session. This uos

the case for the specific teaching behavior; "Orientation of Pupils to the

Learning Task". The diagnostic of the academic year micro.teaching group

revealed that only two teachers used the skill. Consequently, a basic

micro-teaching module was prescribed for all interns.

Teacher Education Centers - Univsersity of Mavland

The University of Koryland has established Teacher Education Centers

which are comprised of several public schools geographically contiguous.

The Teacher Education Center concept is unique to the extent that it focuses

on continuous educational personnel development and is cooperatively

developed and administered by the University and public school. The

University personnel assume major responsibility for training Center faculty

for a significant role in the Induction of student teachers into full time,

professional teachers. Coordinating this program and located in the Center

is a full-time, joint appointee of the University and school. It is within

this context that the establishment of individually prescribed micro-teaching

training modules will aiso be studied. During the Spring semester, 1969,

twelve student teachers will be placed in two Teacher Education Centers.

Concurrent with the micro-teaching and subsequent student teaching phase of

the semester, both general and specific method courses will be taught,

All student teachers in this experience will teach a diagnostic lessm

8

the third day of the semester. The procedere for diagnosing and prescribing

mill be similar to that described above. One exception to that..the

instructional seminars will be a part of the ongoing "methods" instruction.

The second exception vill be that only a portion of the prescribed modules

will occur prior to some classroom teach1n3. Once student teachers begin

classroom teachingv the prescription of training modules will be based on

their performance in the classroom as mell as their past performance in

micro-teaching sessions. A comparison will be maee of the student teachers'

diagnostic teaching performance and their performiince during the last two

weeks in the Center. These data IlI be analyzed using the instruments

described above.

PresUlbed M1i12312S.11111.1t11911KLdules

The present report includes only those modt,les prescribed for the

one-semester micro-teaching group:

Specific

TeachingBeilauior

EstablishingOrientation tothe LearningTask

Numberof

Interns Seminar

YeswithModel

Typeof

ModuleConferenceStrategy

10 DiscriminationTraining

Probing 4 No 3 Video-Tape ModelDiscriminationTraining

Reinforcement 5 No 2 DiscriminationTraining

Closure 3 No 3 Written ModelVideo-Tape ModelDiscriminationTraining

Higher Order 7 No 2 Written ModelQuestions Discrimination

Training

Non-Verbal Cues 3 No 3 Video-Tape ModelDiscriminationTraining

HT)ott..teses

The experimental (micro-teaching) group will acquire a

significantly greater number of selected, specific

teaching behaviors.

The experimental (micro-teaching) grog) will have a

significantly higher indirect/dtrect ratio.

III. The experimental (micro-teaching) group will acquire a

greater number of alternative teaching patterns.

IV. Students in the experimental (miciv-teaching) group will

make a significantly greater numbor of- "emitted"

responses.

Collection and Anal sis of Data

The data was collected for this report by video tlpirg a ten-minute

sampl: of the interns in the control group in the classrom between the

eightli and twelfth week. These recordings were coded usim; Houallgs

Obseriation System for the Analysis of Classroom Iristruction ant. Performance

Critevia for Micro-Teaching. A sample of a Specific Teaching Behaior is

illus.:ration in the Appendix.

Only the performance criteria for specific teaching behaviors

taugh: in the micro-teaching modules -Jere used. The final micro-teaching

perfomance of Jle one-semester mtcroteaching groLp was also video taped and

subjelmed to the same analysis.

In the present study, interrater reliability was determined by using

the p:ocedure described by Scott (l953). Coefficients of .80 and above were

obtailed.

In this preliminary report, the "t" test was used to compare the

perceitages of time teachers in both groups spent in each of the sixteen

catevries. The "t" test was also employed to compare the mean score

differences between the two groups A collected performance criteria and

selec:ed interaction analysis ratios.

In addition to the above, more sophisticated statistical measures

will e used in the final report.

Test It.1.1/221halta

The first hypothesis--the experimental group will acquire a

signiEicantly greater number of selected, specific teaching behaviors,

On thq basis of the preliminary findings, the data in Table I gndicate that

interts in the micro-teaching group performed selected teacher behaviors at

e siguificantly higher mean frequency than those L.- the control group.

Behaviorft.0.010.1110101m1.0

TABLE I

Comparison of Performance of SelectedSpecific Teaching Behaviors

atmotememommsamic: VINCIMINC=11.1.61101MIMINIMINOMOIMIMMIPM1

MicroClassroomassum

/111%.1011.0.411%.....11.4111,ip..

Total Reinforcement Fi 21.4 Fi 11.9

Number of Different71 3.78 F 2.0Reinforcements

Establishing Orientation T:m .78 413

to the Task

i)robing

C/osure

Ti 5.44 F. 1.55

Ti .67 .18

011

Significance.

Level

es...11

2.93 .005

3.79 .005

8.57 .0005

3.70 .005

2.58 001

aMMOrmisposwore warorwm.. ,...=14AIMORMnyIN.Mgsola .106 lieft...0.4110~011=%ml.....m IION110algorWsImegM4WINIMMOSIOINIIWNIMMIONO..POMOMMO 40NO.o...o..owMmamo.. saMM11iIIMIIMON1111MNIM

The second hypothesis--the experimental groLp will have a significantly

higher indirect/direct ratio. Hypothesis II was net supported by a test of

the difference of means for the two groups. The micro-teaching group did

11

reach significance at the .10 level when applying the Revised Indirect/Direct

ratio (categories 1.3 to 7.9). Table II illustrates the comparison of the

micro-teaching and classroom teacher groups on both the Indirect/Direct

and Revised Indirect/Direct ratios.

TULE II

Comparison of Micro-Teaching and ClassroomSamples of Teachers

REVISED INDIRECT/DIRECT RATIO

aftallimMirma...ftlwermniet....~~MMINWAMMMNINRit11.1% OMMV.0109VX.WMAIgn.iN

Micro-Teaching Classroom Mean

ft..m004.0

.00

19.'00

13.002.25 Micro.Teaching

2.50 .007.73 1.57

.00 9.00 Significant25.0011.00

.00

.00

1.50.87

Classroom3.23

at the .10

level

8.00 3.404.00 .00

3.002.50

INDIRECT/DIRECT RATIO

3.69 1.95.27 4.50 Micro-Teaching

1.21 3.78 2.41 Not3.75 3.92 Significant2.53 2.66 Classroom2.00 1.58 2.554.70 1.951.08 1.512.44 .28

5.70.24

MMONO.WWWW//0~4miaMegOMOWNWPr~W A=MWMONOMMIMINIMMINMINPNIIMMONWEM,MIMEMMIMIMWOMOMM011IMP.MWwMMISMOMOwIaMMMINMIAMIMIFIFINKRIMM.W..;

12

The third hypothesis-.the experimental group will acquire a greater

number of alternative teaching pattern. Using the rules for determining

major and minor teaching patterns witA extensions (Amidon and F1andels1 the

composite matrix of teachers in the m'4cro-teaching group exhibits both a

major and minor pattern. The major pittern consists of 440.,2-4 (teacher

question.student elicited response-tetcher praise.teacher question)

and a minor pattern, 4-11-2-6-4 (teacter question.student emitted response.

teacher praise-teacher lecture-teache: question). The composite matrix of

teachers in the classroom group shows only a major pattern. Although the

evidence is not conclusive, the dual )attern does suggest a greater degree

of flexibility in the micro-teaching group. This tends to follow the

rationale provided in the introduction of this paper; namely, if teachers

have a larger repertory of specific teaching behaviors, they can behave with

greater flexibility in the classroom. Figures 1 and 2 show the micropteaching

and classroom teaching patterns.

The fourth hypothesis..students in the experimental group will make

a significantly greater number of "emttted" responses. An inspection of

Flaure'3 indicates that. the subjects in the micro-teaching group did make

a significantly greater number of emitted responses and a significantly

lesser number of elicitud responses. Figure 3 illustrates graphically how

the percentage'of tallies compare for the teachers in both groups wit'a

respect to the verbal response in the sixteen categories.

Analysis and Discussion

A composite matrix showing the average percentage of total tallies

for the micro.teaching group is presented in Table III. Also, Table tv

shows the composite matrix for the control group. The total of each :olumn

indicates the average percentage of tallies recorded for that category and

r

+- t g.6 -7!

Figure 1

Matrix of Classroom Group Showing Teaching Pattern

JPINDIMMIN*1.4~111.804 WYNMIA,

13

lb

2

3

4

5

7

1111111PIMIMPAIIIMMIMMIl NailleManar

lb OVOMMIIIP.M

7 10 1,80

I 36 148NW'

3va. foaaraaam,

8 10

9 --74-77ra-r---""arg".."*"

5 2I 2 1a anaavalraanavomaran

2

3I 1 I

4i I

3 r--7Tri3 -**2"FOTTF-F-1717

rota ----17-07r7".27'27";75 F-3.1-27F-2-; F.6717; 27 9

2

$4,

Major Teaching Pattern m 440.2.4

Mi(71'; Teaching Pattern m 4.11-2-6-4

Figure 2

Matrix of Micro-Teaching Group Showing Tealhing Patterns

.........

T7717 6 I 7 I "";71 1(1i

12 13

i

L5, 16.,.....

1

v...

........

2 2 7(56t-

I 1; 18

3 5

I

5i.....4.,

f

h 21. ..

i

i

5-9-

I

1-11- 67 2 4 10.

1

HI -

1........

1 6 I

......., I

.m.

..........,

10 1

A..1

,

I

1)12 1

1

-

. lid

,

.....

17'............, /1

le, Me

... .............

,7771

1

.3r

u....

/4..

1 :2

65

..........

11 I

1

1:,....1.,.

62..... .....

25........ .... ran..

7a* Iv SIN

1 3

MANYNN -WM'

. * 1

42

WWWWWWOOM000...0040

:i.

13.-11 5 1 1311 2

14

15

1 71 1 2

1 3

.

3...................

21 1

371 1

130 19 728 31

)200 1 9 9C 157 5 24 131Totai

Lil 0aoanOenn.NN"t

Z*-

IIIMUSIMINGEMOSIVAU

TABLE III

Composite Matr,x of micro.TgasuaLitaaa in Percentages

16

.......

1 2

12

I

.002

3

.007

4 5 I 6 I

ow.1

7 8 9 10 11 121 13 1i 4 15 1 16

1

.001

1

003

003

-...,

1

1,0011

062 1.040 .012 .02 .001

.00 .0011

3 .005 005 1.0021..........

065 1.012 00 t .077 .07 002 .004I --1

0104 .001 001I .

i

ra"

055 1.001

.001

.140 0

001

. 00

00

. 011,

I

. 001 . C 01

5 1

6 001

7I

001 .002

.001004 i .00 .0028

1

9GMI.~...1..

015 1 .005 001 .008 .001.001 .003

..0,

.00210 .072...,

.02- .007 .00 .00 .046 .013A ........

I

111

I. 06 8 1 .003

12 .002 1 I .00i 100u1

13

i..00: .005 .00 .001 .014.001 .002

.002 .001 .001

ge I oraraWar.ft

.09214

00:1 .002 .00 .001........

15 .003

16

... ,................. -.a.

I

!TOTAL .001.144 .021 25 ,003 [222 .003.010 .110.174 .005 026 014 .010

TABLE /V

Composite Matti; of C1assrownieaching Group in Percentages

I 1.........**. ASOWS.7.41

1

.4t . Asap

3.

4 5 6

.014

.004

A

001

8 1

I

9 10 11 12 1 13 1.;,........0,,15 16

1 P... taMrt

. )0

S. An1P/4144.

.)17,001r001

ITARCL

001

a

I

111

002

.008

F

.012.05::

00" 00!

.005 .003 p004

0001

oOOI 0001

.0021.......

5

009.................

.00 o10 !

.003

1.0 6

007 .003

.006 .009 073 016 .002

007 .005

..002 .033 .148 .005 002

P AMMAN.

.007 .007

006 .003 .002 00. .003

.1.00.1111WW11.0.1.11 own

1

4010 4009 ,00 .002 .001

Sft.044.1.S........

.102 .001

.001 001

1 0 it 06 2

..

.011- .0011.023,00i.

10.14awridallThe

001 .102 .001 .003

'

)02

11 .015 004 1 002 001 .035 .001

.001

anOPPEWriet

12

13

003

.006

010

...............

.005 OOL 0 1

.009 .002 p003

.001 .010 .003

.001 .006

ilonimmonowS1.4

mix

14 [009 1.0031 r001 .004 .110

15is'16

lbtal

001

. 098

.003..A.PC.....

.003

-''FTMi . 246 . 019

0003

.002

7"- ''''E -1--.217 .007 029 .009

1ft...A.4

T 77.201 0060 ,, 026 0026 .025

, 0051

-""---1.008 ,0005

.002

is a measure of the percentage of tia2 ter:.chexs a particular

catvory.

The "t" test was used to determine tha ziw,ificance level for the

sixteen categories under the Hough Observetinn STtem, (Figure 3).

Those categories reachins signilicant wiTh their xespective

means, are re?eated here.

2A1262EX Micro.TeachIla Classroom Levek.Pk.aaelfiaLq1ce

1-2-3

7-8-9

to

11

It is Interesting to note that-the control reoup has a very high

leve: of significance in category 10 (student-elicited response) whereas

the nicro.teaching group shows significance in cat2gory 11 .(student-emitted

response). Referring back to the composate matrix, Table III,

N 16.66 11.91 t 1.5 @ .10

Ti 1.33 t-t 3.82 t 1.63 @ .10

Ti 11. 00 21.70 t 4.35 @ .0005

17.40 5.91 t 1.92 @ .05

for the micro-teaching group, it is evident om tle steady .3tate cell (1I-11)

that approximately one-fourth of the total ia co1k la 11 was representative

of coatinuous student talk. This suggests that ttli class time was not

dominated by a few students foz a comsiderable lerlth of time.

Categories 7-8-9 (corrective feedback, dirc-:tions and commands, and

criti2ism) were used more than four times as ofter by the control group as

by tha micro-teaching group. The distribtition of :he control group shows

a large part of this difference due-to the 8-S celt (continuous teacher

direttions and commands) and also ditectimprecee2d by teacher questions.

An a!sumption here is that the contra group teact!rs tended to avoid the

use cf silence after a teacher question and inste l filled in with

additional directions and/or commands. Some atterion was given to the

19

micro.teachiag group ir the vise of stlence after a teacher question, attempt.

ing to promote thinkint and comtemplation on the part of the student>.

Categories 1 a& 3 for both groups are quite similar but it 13

interesting to note thf,-t,the micro-teaching group almost evenly divided

their use of praise between cells 10-2 and 11-2. It is assumed the ':ype

of response had little effect on the amount of teacher praise This could,

in part, be the reason 'for the micro-teaching group's having both a major

and minor teaching patt,zrn.

Conclusions

The results of tle preliminary study indicate that teacher caAidates

receiving individually )rescribed micro-teaching training modules wi.1

acquire and implement c significantly greater number of specific teaf:hing

behaviors than candidatas not receiving such training.

The results else suggest that teachers trained in this manner will

be more flexible and will exhibit alternative teaching patterns.

These are prelinlnary findings and should in no way be considered

conclusive

20

*iiertadiE

Perfeemeope .Criteeia for MecroeTeachineAVOIAr. waiwwww.14C~Aasittou'a.

SpecHic Teaching Behavior: Maintaining Pupil Task-Oriented Behavior

This specific teaeber behavior includes teaching behaviors whice eliclt

and/or reward task-oriented pupil behavior and step nonetask oriented :evil

behavior. Task-oriented pupil behavior is defiaed as the attendiag, uerking,

and participatory behaviors of pupils determined essential to the learlingtask.

Teacher Behaviors

In an instructional setteng, the teacher may:

1.

2.

3

guide pupils in setting classroom behaviorfor monitoring.

direct pupils (independeetly and together)of their taskvoriented behaeior.

norms and procedares

in a selfeeppraieel

systematicallF assess the aetending and participatory behaviorsof each pupil by observing pupils9 posture, directIon of ga?:e

line, substanee of student eesponses, etc.

4. given an instance of nonetask oriented behavior, discriminately

implement the following behoviors in terms of individual pu'il

needs and the influence of ehe nonetask oriented behavior o% ottler

students and he projected effect of the control technique (ripple

effect):

(a) Desist,ance.pehaviors% - The teacher makes a direct attempt

to stop the non-task oriented behavior by:

1. pointing out the deviant behavior.

2. addressing the pupil.

3. removing distraetion.4. making a statement to desist.

5. exhibiting non-verbal disapproval.

6. approaching the deviant.

(b) Prompted Reward Behavior - The teacher ignore: the leviant

behavior and induces and reinforces task-oriented behavior

by:

1. reinforcing a student's instructional response

2. reinforcing a response of the nonedeviant.

3. reinforcing a response to the redirected question

to the non-deviant.

4. reinforcing the desired behavior.

5 . adminastering a general reward to the class,

21

(c) Withholding Sanctions - The teacher ignores the non,taskoriented (deviant) bahavior when he is aware that it hasoccurred and may:

1. diTect a content.otelated question to the deviant.2. diTect questivn to a non-deviant.3. incorporate the deviant's response into an

instructional point.

4. redirect a question to a nom.deviant.

5o request positive behavior.

6. positively sanction behavior that might be construedas deviant.

7. ask a non-content question.

Tha teacher's acquisition of the behaviors presented will permit him to

control deviant behavior as It occurs in the classroom and at the same time

induce and reinforce puOls task-oricnted behaviors. A full repertoire of

alternative controlling behaviors permits the teacher to discriminately use

the behavior appropriate to the situation and the individual pupil.

Roforeoces

Gnagey, W. J. Controllina.klasavm Bahavior. Washington, D. C.: NHA, 1965.

Kounin, J. S. and P. V. Gump, "The Com?arative Influence of Punitive andNon-Punitive Teachers upon Children's Concepts of School Misconduct,"JourAal of Educatftonal.Eatoloax, 52, 1961.

. "The Ripple Effect in Diccipline," Elementar School Journal,59, 1958.

Kounin, J. S., P. V. Gump, and J. Ryan, "Explorations in Classroom Management,"Journal of Teacher Edvation, 46, 1961.

Krumboltz, John D. and Dwight L. Goodwin. Increasin Task-Oriented Nhavior:AsInerimentil EyaluatIon of Tvaiu Teachers in Reinforcemsqastatatz. Stanford, Californta: School of Education, Stanford,University, 1966.

Young, David B. °The Effectiveness of Self-Instruction in Teacher EducationUsing Kodelling and Video-Tape Feedback." Unpublished Doctoral

dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, 1967.

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Dwight W., Frederick 3. McDonalA, Machael E. J. Orme, "The Effects of

Feedback and Practice Condition; on the Acquisition of a TeachAng

Strategy" (Stanford University, 1966), (Mimeographed.)

Alien, Dr!;ight W., Kevin A. Ryan, "A Ne-1 Face for Supervision" (Stanford

University, 1965), (mimeographel.)

Allen, Dwight W., David 8. Young, "Television Recordings--A New Dimensionin Teacher Education" (Stanford University, 1966), (MimeographeS)

Allen, Dwight W., David 8. Young, "Victletape Techniques at Stanford University"

Television and Related Media in Teacher Education. Multi-State

Teacher Education Project Monogrephl Baltimore, Marylandl 1961%

Amidon, Edmund J., Ned A. Flanders, The-Role of the Teacher in the Cleesroom.

Minneapolis, Minnesota: Association for Productive Teaching, Ile., 1967.

Amidon, Edmund J., John 6. Hough. Intesaction Angmill.ltesEu.E2Eprch and!!22,11salea. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishin, Co., 1967.

Bush, Robert N., Dwight W. Allen, "Micre-Teaching, Controllee Practice in the

Training of Teachers" (Stanford University, 1964), (Mimeographei.)

Fortune, Jimmie C., et. el., "The Stanford Summer Micro-Teaching 1965"

The Journal of Teq.eher Edueatiort, Vol. XVIII, No. 4, Qinter, 1957.

Gage, N. L. (ed.) Handbock ofamarston Teachina. Chicago: Rand McRally, 1963.

McDonald, F. J., D.'4. Mien, M. E. J. Orme, "The Effects of Self-Feecbackand Reinforcement on the Acquisition of a Teaching Skill" (StanFord

University, 1966), Paper presetited at the annual meeting of AEU, 1966.

Orme, Mlchael E. J. "The -ffects of Modeling and Feedback Variables on the

Acquisition of a Complex Teaching Strategy" (Stanford University, 1966)

Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, 1966.

Young, David B. "The Modification of Tc.acher Behavior Using Audio Vide)-Taped

Models in a Micro-Teaching Sequence" Edpcational Leadeahla, JoIrnal

of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, SA

Vol. 26, No, 4, 1S69.

Young, David B. "The Effectiveness of Self Instruction in Teacher Educttion

Using Modelling and Video Tape Peedback" Paper presented at the annual

meeting of AERA, Chicago, 1968.

Young, David T. "The Effeetiveness of Gelf Instruction in Teacher Educltion

Using Modelling ard Video Tape Veedback" Paper presented at the annual

meeting of AERA, Los Angeles, 1969.

Young, David B., Dorothy Ann Young, "Micro-Teaching: Theory and Practice:

Educational Television. In Press.

Young, David B., Dorothy Ann Young, "Microdaeaching: Exemplary Practiees.

Theorv Into Practice, Journal of the College of Education, The Ohio

State University. In Press.

Yeungv David B., Dorothy Anr Young, "Performnnce Criteria for Micro.Telching"

Washtngtonj D. C.. Forgre. Cor For-eti